Ual awareness and insight is stock-in-trade for brain-injury case managers working

Ual awareness and insight is stock-in-trade for brain-injury case managers working with non-brain-injury specialists. An effective assessment needs to incorporate what is said by the brain-injured person, take account of thirdparty information and take place over time. Only when 369158 these conditions are met can the impacts of an injury be meaningfully identified, by generating knowledge regarding the gaps between what is said and what is done. One-off assessments of need by non-specialist social workers followed by an expectation to self-direct one’s own services are unlikely to deliver good outcomes for people with ABI. And yet personalised practice is essential. ABI highlights some of the inherent tensions and contradictions between personalisation as practice and personalisation as a bureaucratic process. Personalised practice remains essential to good outcomes: it ensures that the unique situation of each person with ABI is considered and that they are actively involved in deciding how any necessary support can most usefully be integrated into their lives. By contrast, personalisation as a bureaucratic process may be highly problematic: privileging notions of autonomy and selfdetermination, at least in the early stages of post-injury rehabilitation, is likely to be at best unrealistic and at worst dangerous. Other authors have noted how personal budgets and self-directed services `should not be a “one-size fits all” approach’ (Netten et al., 2012, p. 1557, emphasis added), but current social wcs.1183 work practice nevertheless appears bound by these bureaucratic processes. This rigid and bureaucratised interpretation of `personalisation’ affords limited opportunity for the long-term relationships which are needed to develop truly personalised practice with and for people with ABI. A diagnosis of ABI should automatically trigger a specialist assessment of social care needs, which takes place over time rather than as a one-off event, and involves sufficient face-to-face contact to JTC-801 supplier enable a relationship of trust to develop between the specialist social worker, the person with ABI and their1314 Mark Holloway and Rachel Fysonsocial networks. Social workers in non-specialist teams may not be able to challenge the prevailing hegemony of `personalisation as self-directed support’, but their practice with individuals with ABI can be improved by gaining a better understanding of some of the JWH-133 web complex outcomes which may follow brain injury and how these impact on day-to-day functioning, emotion, decision making and (lack of) insight–all of which challenge the application of simplistic notions of autonomy. An absence of knowledge of their absence of knowledge of ABI places social workers in the invidious position of both not knowing what they do not know and not knowing that they do not know it. It is hoped that this article may go some small way towards increasing social workers’ awareness and understanding of ABI–and to achieving better outcomes for this often invisible group of service users.AcknowledgementsWith thanks to Jo Clark Wilson.Diarrheal disease is a major threat to human health and still a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide.1 Globally, 1.5 million deaths and nearly 1.7 billion diarrheal cases occurred every year.2 It is also the second leading cause of death in children <5 years old and is responsible for the death of more than 760 000 children every year worldwide.3 In the latest UNICEF report, it was estimated that diarrheal.Ual awareness and insight is stock-in-trade for brain-injury case managers working with non-brain-injury specialists. An effective assessment needs to incorporate what is said by the brain-injured person, take account of thirdparty information and take place over time. Only when 369158 these conditions are met can the impacts of an injury be meaningfully identified, by generating knowledge regarding the gaps between what is said and what is done. One-off assessments of need by non-specialist social workers followed by an expectation to self-direct one’s own services are unlikely to deliver good outcomes for people with ABI. And yet personalised practice is essential. ABI highlights some of the inherent tensions and contradictions between personalisation as practice and personalisation as a bureaucratic process. Personalised practice remains essential to good outcomes: it ensures that the unique situation of each person with ABI is considered and that they are actively involved in deciding how any necessary support can most usefully be integrated into their lives. By contrast, personalisation as a bureaucratic process may be highly problematic: privileging notions of autonomy and selfdetermination, at least in the early stages of post-injury rehabilitation, is likely to be at best unrealistic and at worst dangerous. Other authors have noted how personal budgets and self-directed services `should not be a “one-size fits all” approach’ (Netten et al., 2012, p. 1557, emphasis added), but current social wcs.1183 work practice nevertheless appears bound by these bureaucratic processes. This rigid and bureaucratised interpretation of `personalisation’ affords limited opportunity for the long-term relationships which are needed to develop truly personalised practice with and for people with ABI. A diagnosis of ABI should automatically trigger a specialist assessment of social care needs, which takes place over time rather than as a one-off event, and involves sufficient face-to-face contact to enable a relationship of trust to develop between the specialist social worker, the person with ABI and their1314 Mark Holloway and Rachel Fysonsocial networks. Social workers in non-specialist teams may not be able to challenge the prevailing hegemony of `personalisation as self-directed support’, but their practice with individuals with ABI can be improved by gaining a better understanding of some of the complex outcomes which may follow brain injury and how these impact on day-to-day functioning, emotion, decision making and (lack of) insight–all of which challenge the application of simplistic notions of autonomy. An absence of knowledge of their absence of knowledge of ABI places social workers in the invidious position of both not knowing what they do not know and not knowing that they do not know it. It is hoped that this article may go some small way towards increasing social workers’ awareness and understanding of ABI–and to achieving better outcomes for this often invisible group of service users.AcknowledgementsWith thanks to Jo Clark Wilson.Diarrheal disease is a major threat to human health and still a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide.1 Globally, 1.5 million deaths and nearly 1.7 billion diarrheal cases occurred every year.2 It is also the second leading cause of death in children <5 years old and is responsible for the death of more than 760 000 children every year worldwide.3 In the latest UNICEF report, it was estimated that diarrheal.